[1] In relation to Article 4 (1) 6 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State, the scope of recognition of proximate causal relation between education and training or performance of duty and his/her injury and disease,

[2] The case holding that the proximate causal relation between mental fission and military personnel's education and training or performance of their duties is acknowledged in the light of the fact that mental disorder has deteriorated due to stress on the degree that a person with mental disorder has been unable to properly adapt to the new environment during military service

[1] Article 4 (1) 6 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State / [2] Article 4 (1) 6 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2006Du19273 Decided March 29, 2007, Supreme Court Decision 2007Du11252 Decided September 6, 2007, Supreme Court Decision 2006Du15486 Decided May 29, 2008

Plaintiff

The Head of the Seoul Northern Branch Office

Seoul High Court Decision 2005Nu29220 decided August 9, 2006

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. The term "an injury or disease during education and training or performance of duty (including a disease in official duty)" under Article 4 (1) 6 (b) of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State refers to the injury or disease of a soldier or police officer during education and training or performance of duty. Thus, in order to be different from the above provision, there should be a proximate causal relationship between education and training or performance of duty and the injury or disease. Not only the occurrence of an injury or disease directly caused by education and training or performance of duty, but also the case where an injury or disease occurred due to education and training or performance of duty or in group overlaps with each other, it should be deemed that the causal relationship exists. It should be determined not only by the medical and natural scientific proof but also by the health and evidence of a proximate causal relationship between a soldier and an injury or disease during education and training or performance of duty (see Supreme Court Decisions 9Du3331, Jun. 8, 199; 200Du3679, Nov. 29, 2007. 207

2. According to the facts and records of the court below, the plaintiff was lawfully discharged from the military hospital on May 15, 196, and was under physical examination at the military hospital of 2 years, and was admitted to the military hospital of 3 years, 1987. The plaintiff was absent from the military hospital of 9 years. The plaintiff was discharged from the military hospital of 19 years, and was discharged from the military hospital of 3 years, and was discharged from the military hospital of 9 years, and was discharged from the military hospital of 19 years, and was discharged from the military hospital of 19 years, and was discharged from the military hospital of 9 years. The plaintiff was diagnosed as having been discharged from the military hospital of 19 years, and was discharged from the military hospital of 19 years, for the same time as "the military hospital of 9 years was discharged from the military hospital of 9 years," and the plaintiff could not be seen as having been discharged from the military hospital of 9 years, for the same reason as "the military hospital of 1 year was discharged from the military hospital of 5 years."

According to the above facts, the plaintiff was found to have been suffering from unexpected distress since he was unable to properly adapt to the old military life in which strict regulations and control are carried out, unlike ordinary society after entering the military, and there seems to have been special circumstances that could have been caused by psychological or social and cultural factors, and in particular, even if an individual vulnerable to mental disorder is suffering from environmental stress, it can be caused by psychological or social and cultural factors, and in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff's mental division among the above facts is a disease that can be caused even if he was admitted to the training center and appeared to have deteriorated the symptoms during the military service period. The plaintiff was unable to properly adapt to the old military life due to stress in which he was unable to properly adapt to the new military environment.

Nevertheless, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, determined that it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s mental fission was caused by education and training or performance of duty as a soldier or aggravated natural progress. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on proximate causal relation between the Plaintiff’s disease, education and training or performance of duty, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)